Search results

This research seeks to explain how a national government becomes capable of constructing an account of its biodiversity performance that is aimed at enabling formulation of policy in pursuit of SDG 15: Life on Land.

The research examines a case study of the construction of the UK government's annual biodiversity report. The case is analysed to explain the process of framing a space in which the SDG-15 challenge of halting biodiversity loss is rendered calculable, such that the government can see and understand its own performance in relation to this challenge.

The construction of UK government's annual biodiversity report relies upon data collected through non-governmental conservation efforts, statistical expertise of a small project group within the government and a governmental structure that drives ongoing evolution of the indicators as actors strive to make these useful for policy formulation.

The analysis problematises the SDG approach to accounting for sustainable development, whereby performance indicators have been centrally agreed and universally imposed upon all signatory governments. The analysis suggests that capacity-building efforts for national governments may need to be broader than that envisaged by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a unified understanding of materiality is possible, given that conceptual pluralism represents a key characteristic of materiality approaches in sustainability reporting.

This paper systematically reviews and examines materiality conceptualizations in sustainability disclosure research and practice, utilizing Gallie’s (1956) analytical framework of essentially contested concepts. The framework enables the separation of conceptual confusion from essential contestation. Whereas reaching conceptual consensus is possible in the former, the hurdles to conceptual agreement are insurmountable in the latter.

This paper reveals that the prevailing lack of consensus surrounding materiality is grounded in its essential contestation, not in conceptual confusion. This robustly supports the projection of conceptual plurality as materiality’s most probable future.

Building on the materiality concept’s essentially contested nature, this paper calls for future research that explicitly embraces the concept’s plural character and more interdisciplinary research.

As a unified understanding of materiality is unlikely to evolve, standard-setters should provide a clear definition of the underlying materiality concept, offer specific guidance on materiality assessment and issue joint documents that detail the similarities, differences and interconnections between their respective materiality frameworks.

Projecting plurality as materiality’s most probable future underscores the importance of users of sustainability reports understanding the materiality concept applied by the reporting entity and the respective consequences for identifying material sustainability issues.

From this paper’s novel insight that materiality is an essentially contested concept, this paper derives two overarching future research directions and offers a broad set of exemplary research questions.